• Donald R. McCreary
  • Joan C. Chrisler


Studies of sex differences are as old as the field of psychology, and they have been conducted in every subfield of the discipline. There are probably many reasons for the popularity of these studies, but three reasons seem to be most prominent. First, social psychological studies of person perception show that sex is especially salient in social groups. It is the first thing people notice about others, and it is one of the things we remember best (Fiske, Haslam, & Fiske, 1991; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). For example, people may not remember who uttered a witty remark, but they are likely to remember whether the quip came from a woman or a man. Second, many people hold firm beliefs that aspects of physiology suit men and women for particular social roles. Men’s greater upper body strength makes them better candidates for manual labor, and


Gender Difference Sexual Minority Gender Stereotype Gender Identity Disorder Trans People 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Archer, J. (1989). The relationship between gender-role measures: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173–184.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chrisler, J. C. (2007). The subtleties of meaning: Still arguing after all these years. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 442–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooke, E. P. (1985). Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 656–674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2008). Handbook of emergent methods. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as distinct concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 428–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCreary, D. R. (1990). Multidimensionality and the measurement of gender-role attributes: A comment on Archer. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 265–272.Google Scholar
  11. McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pryzgoda, J., & Chrisler, J. C. (2000). Definitions of sex and gender: The subtleties of meaning. Sex Roles, 43, 553–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 1–97). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attitudes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. (2000). The Adolescent Femininity Ideology Scale: Development and validation of a new measure for girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Unger, R. K. (1998). Resisting gender: Twenty-five years of feminist psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilkinson, L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald R. McCreary
    • 1
  • Joan C. Chrisler
    • 2
  1. 1.Brock University, St. Catharines, ON Canada; York UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Connecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA

Personalised recommendations